Posts Tagged ‘Adobe

04
Feb

Adobe - reinterpret(problem) == Solved

My adobe saga is ongoing. I received a further email today, which fails to address my point, and is encouraging me to go around in circles with my correspondence to Adobe.

Thank you for contacting Adobe Customer Services.
We guess your query is to amend the EULA policy, unfortunately that is not possible for now, may be in the nearest future, please stick to the policy, only install on your PC or other wise buy a full version flash media Server which you can install any where you like.
Thanks.
Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Although a side-product of my correspondence may be that the EULA for flash-player may change (or be made clearer) - my main concern is whether or not it is legal for me to use the flash-player on my initially-a-’Media Centre’-but-now-a-PC Computer.

As identified quite correctly by popey in #ubuntu-uk - there’s no defintion for “Media Centre PC” - therefore I shouldn’t be worried on this point.  It was my paranoia, rather than anything specifically in the EULA which led me to think I was running a “media centre.”

However, reading through section 3.1 of  the EULA makes interesting reading. If we ignore the “examples list” (in italics) - then it becomes quite clear.

3.1  Web Player Prohibited Devices. You may not Use any Web Player on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not use a Web Player on any (a) mobile devices, set top boxes (STB), handhelds, phones, web pads, tablets and Tablet PCs that are not running Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, game consoles, TVs, DVD players, media centers (excluding Windows XP Media Center Edition and its successors), electronic billboards or other digital signage, internet appliances or other internet-connected devices, PDAs, medical devices, ATMs, telematic devices, gaming machines, home automation systems, kiosks, remote control devices, or any other consumer electronics device, (b) operator-based mobile, cable, satellite, or television systems or (c) other closed system devices.

However, I do feel quite silly in pursuing what is now a dead end.. therefore I address Adobe with the following.

Thanks for letting us use flash-player on Linux - but please make the examples list more Linux (and even apple..) friendly :)

02
Feb

Adobe pick up the pace.

I received an email this evening in reference to my previous post on the adobe flash-player EULA.The reason that I am persisting with this communication is that I don’t appear to have been given a satisfactory response as to whether I can legally run flash-player on my PC.  I outline my situation below:

 For what it’s worth the PC I bought (2 year ago) is a dell dimension 5150 - and was initially sold with Windows Media Centre on it. I now run ubuntu on it. Does this class as a media centre PC (I could easily argue it does) therefore according to the EULA I am not allowed to run flashplayer on it. However, to all intents and purposes it has many design similarities to a ‘PC’ therefore it is permissable (according to your EULA) to run flashplayer on it.

This was included in my latest response to Adobe.  I’m sure it could be read as me being a little “arsey” - but were some cyber-cop come and analyse my PC - I’d like to know the legal status of my software.  Using ubuntu-only repos I’m already quite confident that all my software is legally installed downloaded.  It’s just this flash-player that I’m currently naive about.The last response was not very satisfactory at all - and I seem to be going round in circles.

Dear Mr. Loughran,

Can i refer you to the following URL: http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/

Adobe products are not sold; rather, copies of Adobe products so therefore everyone has to agree with them to use the products, the reasons as to why certain things are in the EULAs is not part of our workflow as they are legal agreements and i am not a lawyer. Sorry that i cannot give you a more definative answer. 

 

Hopefully I’ll be able to report back on what constitutes a “Media Centre PC” in the eyes of Adobe.  All interesting stuff I think you’ll agree. (I hope so anyway, please let me know if you think I am wasting my time). 

31
Jan

…and someone from Adobe emailed me back.

A while back I wrote about the adobe flash player EULA.

It was a while ago, so I wasn’t expecting a response anytime soon. I got one today:

Thank you for contacting Adobe Customer Services.

Regarding your question about using Flash player with a Linux OS on a Tablet PC:

This is a legal restiction rather than a technical restriction. You are advised to abide by the terms of the EULA as stated below.

3.1 Web Player Prohibited Devices. You may not Use any Web Player on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not use a Web Player on any (a) mobile devices, set top boxes (STB), handhelds, phones, web pads, tablets and Tablet PCs that are not running Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, game consoles, TVs, DVD players, media centers (excluding Windows XP Media Center Edition and its successors), electronic billboards or other digital signage, internet appliances or other internet-connected devices, PDAs, medical devices, ATMs, telematic devices, gaming machines, home automation systems, kiosks, remote control devices, or any other consumer electronics device, (b) operator-based mobile, cable, satellite, or television systems or (c) other closed system devices.

We are still investigating this issue and we may contact you if we need to communicate any further information.

Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours Sincerely,

If you take a look at the original post, I did not question as to why it wasn’t allowed; I questioned as to why they word the EULA to prohibit its usage. It may be a legal reason but until Adobe can provide a definitive reason (other than, it’s in the EULA) - then I won’t be satisfied.  The case continues…

15
Jan

Ethical Action by the BCS (or any other IT organisation)…

My recent post on the BCS questioned whether or not I should join. I’ve decided (also thanks to a fantastic response from Mark Harrison) to do so, probably around March.

The main article that attracted my interest enough to write the previous post, also posed a question that I have an alternate view on. The article covered:

Should BCS take a proactive role in bringing concerns of an ethical nature involving the use of IT to the public’s attention?

The main paridigm of the article was that due the the members of the BCS having split affiliation between the different political parties, and therefore the politics of the individual issue - it was perhaps not in its best interests to voice an opinion - as the membership would have to be polled. The issues brought up for discussion in the article were the ID Cards - and the NHS Central Repository of Patient Information.

In my opinion this is exaclty the sort of thing I’d like an ‘independent’ and ‘chartered’ IT organisation in the UK to be doing. I don’t expect such an organisation to promote/demote the actual policy - but be more involved in how the policy is implemented. Rather than contesting the need for this central repository - the organisation should be analysing and offering different methods of fulfilling the functional specification.

For ID cards, the BCS should be using their collective technical expertise to make sure that there are no ‘weak points’ in the infrastructure of such a critical database. The security should be audited by the BCS (paid for by whichever consultants happen to be doing the implementation). However, the BCS should not question the policy itself. In my opinion that is where the BCS would become internally divisive.

Other areas in which the BCS should operate is in analysing future market trends. The BBC iPlayer debate being something I’ve yet to see the BCS have much publicity over. Someone ‘educated and informed’ and most of all ‘independent’ needs to comment on what the BBC’s policy actually means. The repercussions of the BBC’s decision on small businesses and the IT sector in the UK need to be addressed publicly. The BCS are the only organisation (to my knowledge) that have the respect and perceived independence to be authoritative on this issue. Organisations like the OSC and ORG have done a fantastic job thus far - but as they are more ‘radical’ - their views are easily rebutted by the ‘average joe.’

I think this is a desirable role for the BCS to take - advising people like John Pugh on the technicalities and viable options - rather than have people talk about ‘principles’ which are currently impossible to pursue. If there’s already another organisation that fulfils this role, (as I’ll consider joining that one too,) please let me know.

17
Dec

So I phoned Adobe…

I’m really pleased with the streaming iPlayer - I liked Robin Hood when it first came out, but hardly ever watch TV over the weekend. Now, with the iPlayer, I can catch up and watch this fantastic series. Robin Hood sets a fine example to us all, and now as the “Robin Hood of the Internet” - I decided to do my own bit of philanthropy on the part of a recently disgruntled reader.

The reader posted a disgruntled comment on Flash Player on Linux. One of the complaints he made was that according to the EULA, us Linux users are excluded from using any adobe “Web Player” on Linux. To avoid any confusion - here’s the relevant excerpt of the Adobe EULA:

3.1 Web Player Prohibited Devices. You may not Use any Web Player on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not use a Web Player on any (a) mobile devices, set top boxes (STB), handhelds, phones, web pads, tablets and Tablet PCs that are not running Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, game consoles, TVs, DVD players, media centers (excluding Windows XP Media Center Edition and its successors), electronic billboards or other digital signage, internet appliances or other internet-connected devices, PDAs, medical devices, ATMs, telematic devices, gaming machines, home automation systems, kiosks, remote control devices, or any other consumer electronics device, (b) operator-based mobile, cable, satellite, or television systems or (c) other closed system devices.

I must say, it’s not going to win any prizes for clarity. Therefore, (being a good internet citizen) I phoned Adobe to check that my Adobe 9 installation was legal. I’m running Gentoo on an Dell Dimension 5150. I also run ubuntustudio on the same machine.

I got through to customer service quite fast, and the lady at the end of the phone was pleasant. She read through the EULA for me, and we came to the following conclusions:

  • I can run adobe flash player on Linux on my PC.
    • I quote “They do have a download so you must be able to, otherwise that’s just plain mean.”
  • I cannot run adobe flash player on Linux on my tablet PC.
  • I cannot run adobe flash player on Linux on my “media centre PC.”
  • I cannot run adobe flash player on Linux on my Phone. (neo1973).

The customer service representative did concede that there was no-one she could ask about my individual predicament “as Adobe’s free software isn’t covered by technical support - only customer services.” However, she has now filed a technical request so I can have a full explanation of why I can run Flash Player on my PC, but not my Tablet…

The case continues….